Amending Citizenship

Gradea

Gradea

TNPer
As the Grim Reaper has ceased to be a citizen of the North Pacific, I will be starting a new thread as I wish to see this legislation get through.



Chapter 6 "Government Regulations", Section 1 "Citizenship" of the Legal Code will be amended to add the following clause:

2. Any forum member may petition the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, or Speaker to motion for validation, passage of which would allow them to use their forum account username as a substitute for a resident nation in the The North Pacific in any and all instances required by law. A motion for validation requires a majority vote by the Regional Assembly to pass.
Click to expand...
 
Hm, interesting suggestion. That said, how would we handle them running for delegate or vice-delegate since we can't exactly substitute forum user-names for either of those roles?

The SC procedure is clear, so I'm not worried - they're explicit in the eligibility criteria for applications.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Hm, interesting suggestion. That said, how would we handle them running for delegate or vice-delegate since we can't exactly substitute forum user-names for either of those roles?

The SC procedure is clear, so I'm not worried - they're explicit in the eligibility criteria for applications.
Click to expand...
Since DoS nations did something to be DoS, I do think, Raven, that would be their perceived consequence. Anything involving WA endorsements such as the SC and the Delegacy/Vice Delegacy would be improbable and thus should be off limits for DoS players.
 
I get your point, but citizens have rights - if we give people citizenship following this procedure, then they technically have the right to run in all elections.

Otherwise, we run the risk of creating a second tier of citizen.
 
Unless we made a clause saying DoS players cannot run for WA-related positions. They could still run for Speaker, be in the Executive Staff, or be appointed to the Cabinet or Deputy Speakership.

Since DoS players have no NS accounts, the above, as well as the original motioned amendment in the OP, are both necessary. Sometimes rights must be overlooked in favor of logic. This is one of those times.

Either we debate about things DoS players legally cannot fully attain because they're DoS, or we do not let DoS players participate in the government at all. The former is the way to go, because the latter would wind up infringing upon more rights than would be infringed upon by the former.
 
But this legislation has nothing to do with DOS. It lets anyone who doesn't feel like maintaining a nation petition to do so.

Raven is right that that's not enough by itself. Without adding in language to restrict a forum-name-citizen from running for delegate or vice delegate, they would legally be able to do so and, if they were popular and people forgot that they don't have a TNP nation, might win and cause a bit of a crisis.

I'm not sure I support this legislation (like the previous proposal), but that would be the minimum required to make it viable.

Edit:
Syrixia:
Either we debate about things DoS players legally cannot fully attain because they're DoS, or we do not let DoS players participate in the government at all. The former is the way to go, because the latter would wind up infringing upon more rights than would be infringed upon by the former.
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate. Granting citizenship only to nations in TNP is not infringing on any rights - bear in mind that the BOR explicitly applies to "Nations of The North Pacific" - emphasis mine. Anybody with a forum account but without a nation in TNP is not protected by our bill of rights at all, so nothing is infringed by not granting citizenship (that is, unless you want to argue that citizenship in TNP is a natural right, but I think that's a hard case to make).

This is already problematic when it comes to Nierr specifically, who is a deputy minister without any rights whatsoever. If we want to enshrine this possibility into law, and bestow some rights that normally accompany citizenship (like voting), we absolutely need to change the BoR as well.
 
I'm not feeling this. The North Pacific, even though it has an offsite government, is a region in NationStates and that government is for that region and its nations. This is also an extremely uncommon edge case. Absent a DoS, maintaining a nation in TNP is dead simple. If we really want to make a special exemption in the law for people with outstanding DoS's, better to pass one time acts granting citizenship than to put something permanently in the legal code that'll rarely be used.
 
Gulliver:
I'm not feeling this. The North Pacific, even though it has an offsite government, is a region in NationStates and that government is for that region and its nations. This is also an extremely uncommon edge case. Absent a DoS, maintaining a nation in TNP is dead simple. If we really want to make a special exemption in the law for people with outstanding DoS's, better to pass one time acts granting citizenship than to put something permanently in the legal code that'll rarely be used.
Click to expand...
But if we don't put it in the legal code it will be the source of endless debate, numerous times; one for each DoS player who applies here. It needs to be put solid in the legal code.

If you're worried about stuff like this, we could easily make a clause simply stating that each player's case is individual. It's just better to put it in stone in the Code.

@Asta: Then we need to change the BOR to include DoS rights. This is the DoS Rights Movement!
 
Frankly, if someone is dos there ought to be debate before granting them citizenship.

I oppose this, for all the reasons stated.
 
Syrixia:
Gulliver:
I'm not feeling this. The North Pacific, even though it has an offsite government, is a region in NationStates and that government is for that region and its nations. This is also an extremely uncommon edge case. Absent a DoS, maintaining a nation in TNP is dead simple. If we really want to make a special exemption in the law for people with outstanding DoS's, better to pass one time acts granting citizenship than to put something permanently in the legal code that'll rarely be used.
Click to expand...
But if we don't put it in the legal code it will be the source of endless debate, numerous times; one for each DoS player who applies here. It needs to be put solid in the legal code.

If you're worried about stuff like this, we could easily make a clause simply stating that each player's case is individual. It's just better to put it in stone in the Code.

@Asta: Then we need to change the BOR to include DoS rights. This is the DoS Rights Movement!
Click to expand...
It's still not DOS specific, though. Nobody without a nation in TNP has any rights here, DOS or not. :P
 
SillyString:
Syrixia:
Gulliver:
I'm not feeling this. The North Pacific, even though it has an offsite government, is a region in NationStates and that government is for that region and its nations. This is also an extremely uncommon edge case. Absent a DoS, maintaining a nation in TNP is dead simple. If we really want to make a special exemption in the law for people with outstanding DoS's, better to pass one time acts granting citizenship than to put something permanently in the legal code that'll rarely be used.
Click to expand...
But if we don't put it in the legal code it will be the source of endless debate, numerous times; one for each DoS player who applies here. It needs to be put solid in the legal code.

If you're worried about stuff like this, we could easily make a clause simply stating that each player's case is individual. It's just better to put it in stone in the Code.

@Asta: Then we need to change the BOR to include DoS rights. This is the DoS Rights Movement!
Click to expand...
It's still not DOS specific, though. Nobody without a nation in TNP has any rights here, DOS or not. :P
Click to expand...
Then how is this the freest region in NS? DOS players deserve rights on the forum, because the forum is not nationstates.net, and they retain a presence here.

If they are not allowed to serve in WA-related positions, that just makes sense.

If they are not allowed to serve in the government at all, then that's a violation of their natural right to participate in a government that makes the rules they must follow and runs the region they are loyal to.
 
Syrixia:
Then how is this the freest region in NS? DOS players deserve rights on the forum, because the forum is not nationstates.net, and they retain a presence here.

If they are not allowed to serve in WA-related positions, that just makes sense.

If they are not allowed to serve in the government at all, then that's a violation of their natural right to participate in a government that makes the rules they must follow and runs the region they are loyal to.
Click to expand...
The forum government is the government for the region in the game is why, maybe? You might be joining an online community, Syrixia, but you are also joining a community that is based on a game. Yes, they might have given part of their time to the region before they were DoS, however, that doesn't excuse the fact they are DoS. Citizens are people who have joined the community off the site, yes, but they also maintain a presences on the site as well. If you extend rights and citizenship to those who can't play the game any longer, you can essentially open the rights and citizenship to those who don't play the game either. DoS already have the ability to participate off-site, without even having to maintain a citizenship.

Aside that point, how is participation in a government a "natural right" in terms of NationStates? As far as natural rights go, the only true "natural right" to the game is the freedom to run your nation on your own terms so long as you don't violate site rules. The off-site communities of the regions are subject to those rules each community has built.
 
I'm still against this. I'm already surprised/disappointed at how involved in TNP governmental affairs the DoS person in question is. He has also been given RP moderator privileges. I guess that's not enough.

Zyvetskistaahn:
Nierr has requested someone note that he is not desirous of rights of the kind Syrixia is advocating for
Click to expand...
I object to the Deputy Speaker acting as Nierr's proxy in the RA on this issue. He can start a thread (or continue one) about his stance elsewhere.
 
This desire to reward players who clearly broke the fundamental rules of NS, and as a consequence, betray the very principles upon which the Government of The North Pacific was founded, and this community was established for, is deeply offensive to me.

I cannot support these sort of changes. And I strongly object to the concept of giving players, who cannot have Nations, the rights of Nations in TNP under our Bill of Rights.

This proposal smacks of political expediency of the worse kind, and it should have never seen the light of day.
 
falapatorius:
I object to the Deputy Speaker acting as Nierr's proxy in the RA on this issue. He can start a thread (or continue one) about his stance elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Your objection is noted, and I find nothing inappropriate about Zyvet's post.
 
COE:
Your objection is noted, and I find nothing inappropriate about Zyvet's post
Click to expand...
Alright, if you want to establish that precedent, who am I to complain? I understand you're defending your Deputy, but I suggest you consider the ramifications. Allowing a non-citizen to have their opinions on legislation be heard (directly or indirectly) in the RA (when not allowed to do so) undermines the whole process imo. In this case, the non-citizen is a DoS player. Non-existent from an NS point of view, yet enjoying favor from some high-ranking TNP gov't officials. Bravo. :clap:
 
falapatorius:
COE:
Your objection is noted, and I find nothing inappropriate about Zyvet's post
Click to expand...
Alright, if you want to establish that precedent, who am I to complain? I understand you're defending your Deputy, but I suggest you consider the ramifications. Allowing a non-citizen to have their opinions on legislation be heard (directly or indirectly) in the RA (when not allowed to do so) undermines the whole process imo. In this case, the non-citizen is a DoS player. Non-existent from an NS point of view, yet enjoying favor from some high-ranking TNP gov't officials. Bravo. :clap:
Click to expand...
I think it's relevant to the issue when the non-citizen commenting is the one who is, obliquely, under discussion here, and particularly when that person actually has no interest in the change that is being discussed ostensibly for his benefit.

It's not that that changes the quality or merit of the legislation itself, but it ought to make anyone who is supporting this on (poor, disenfranchised) Nierr's behalf to rethink their stance.

I guess he could have posted elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure he did that last time and nobody saw it.
 
SS:
I think it's relevant to the issue when the non-citizen commenting is the one who is, obliquely, under discussion here, and particularly when that person actually has no interest in the change that is being discussed ostensibly for his benefit.

It's not that that changes the quality or merit of the legislation itself, but it ought to make anyone who is supporting this on (poor, disenfranchised) Nierr's behalf to rethink their stance.
Click to expand...
That comes across as bending the rules for political expediency (not intended as such I'm sure). So.. as long as legislation is about you (per se).. you have a right to comment/post about it? Nope.. can't buy that. The RA is what it is. If we allow one non-citizen (without an actual TNP nation.. or any nation for that matter) to have access.. we should afford that opportunity to those that do have a TNP nation.

As to the quality of this legislation.. it is incomplete at best. Still unsupportable from my perspective tho.
 
I recognise the intent behind this. However, as Gulliver said, an amendment to the Constitution and so forth may not be an optimal way to pass this.

The intent behind this was to allow Nierr to be appointed as a Minister; whereas currently that is restricted due to his lack of citizenship.

Pondering this, we have the RA override which can be used for rejected applicants. Could we not apply a similar theory and method to grant him citizenship? For the sake of argument, can someone (in good standing with the mods) just not create a puppet nation and let him claim it is his? The NS rules wouldn't be broken as he would have no access to said nation, nor would it be used for the WA - which would stop him running for Delegate, Vice-Delegate or joining the SC and would save us doing yet more work.

Yes, not quite the way TNP does things but... this is an unorthodox situation.
 
I don't believe that that would be legal. I think attempting to do so would be fraud and gross misconduct (the latter once an oath is sworn that that nation is one's own nation), and any government official who went along with it would be guilty of the same, as well as conspiracy.
 
I'm inclined to agree with the opinion that this sort of legislation is unnecessary. While I don't think that anyone who is DOS is automatically not fit to be a citizen due to their past actions, I do think that, as Gulliver and Asta said, The North Pacific is a NationStates region and we should expect people who are participating in the government to have active nations.

While I wouldn't be opposed to a piece of legislation allowing people without nations to have citizenship on principle, I think it would be very hard to work out.
 
Then perhaps a form of proxy status? Where the person who creates the nation acknowledges it as a proxy for Nierr during the process.
 
Gracius Maximus:
As I am unfamiliar with the situation directly, why was Nierr banned from NS?
Click to expand...
Continued flamebaiting/flaming over a variety of nations on the NS forums.

I researched him.
 
Then, without meaning any disrespect to the person behind the Nierr account, why are we bothering with this at all? He was banned from the game so why should he be part of the governing of the region? I can understand being friends and taking part in RP etc. here but he doesn't actually play Nation States. Has this government separated itself from the onsite while I wasn't looking?

Just curious mostly. I know people that actually follow the rules and play the game that get treated like crap in these halls and yet we are trying to bend the rules and change the laws to accommodate someone who has been removed from the game. Does not make a lot of sense to me, honestly.
 
falapatorius:
COE:
Your objection is noted, and I find nothing inappropriate about Zyvet's post
Click to expand...
Alright, if you want to establish that precedent, who am I to complain? I understand you're defending your Deputy, but I suggest you consider the ramifications. Allowing a non-citizen to have their opinions on legislation be heard (directly or indirectly) in the RA (when not allowed to do so) undermines the whole process imo. In this case, the non-citizen is a DoS player. Non-existent from an NS point of view, yet enjoying favor from some high-ranking TNP gov't officials. Bravo. :clap:
Click to expand...
falapatorius:
That comes across as bending the rules for political expediency (not intended as such I'm sure). So.. as long as legislation is about you (per se).. you have a right to comment/post about it? Nope.. can't buy that. The RA is what it is. If we allow one non-citizen (without an actual TNP nation.. or any nation for that matter) to have access.. we should afford that opportunity to those that do have a TNP nation.
Click to expand...
Non-citizens have no right to post or comment on any issue under debate within these chambers. That being said, there is absolutely no rule against citizens taking the views of non-citizens into account as they debate and discuss an issue, nor is there anything wrong with a citizen bringing those views to the table. If we were requesting a special mask for Nierr that allowed him to post here without being a citizen, I could understand your position. However, all that has happened is that a citizen has decided that Nierr's views are relevant, and has posted their impression of those views here.
 
I still think it's been a long while since the events that got Nierr DOS'd happened. From what I've seen, I do not see him as a flamebaiter or any of those other things. He's gone through all his chances on NS, but he deserves one more on the forum. If you all have any compassion and respect for this man and how much he clearly wants to contribute to the region- to the point where he's appointed Deputy Minister and this whole thing starts- you'll agree with me.
 
Syrixia:
I still think it's been a long while since the events that got Nierr DOS'd happened. From what I've seen, I do not see him as a flamebaiter or any of those other things. He's gone through all his chances on NS, but he deserves one more on the forum. If you all have any compassion and respect for this man and how much he clearly wants to contribute to the region- to the point where he's appointed Deputy Minister and this whole thing starts- you'll agree with me.
Click to expand...

I agree that Nierr is not a flamebaiter and is different on this forum. His work here is commendable and he has the respect of many of us for that work.

That does not mean that we must support an amendment to citizenship that is questionable and could have other negative implications. I support Nierr, but I do not support the amendment for the various issues that others have already highlighted.
 
COE:
However, all that has happened is that a citizen has decided that Nierr's views are relevant, and has posted their impression of those views here.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just a citizen though, it was the Deputy Speaker. As I stated, the Deputy was acting as a proxy for Nierr:
Zyvetskistaahn:
Nierr has requested someone note that he is not desirous of rights of the kind Syrixia is advocating for.
Click to expand...
If the Speaker's Office is willing to allow this, that's fine. It would be a good way for non-citizens to be heard by the RA (indirectly anyway). :clap:

(oh btw, I don't think a DoS person's views on pending legislation are relevant at all)
 
The RA has the power to change the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It does not have the power just to ignore it.

The only way this legislation would work would be by twisting the bill of rights into a pretzel, or by sticking our fingers in our ears, going "la la la" and pretending that when the Bill of Rights says "nation" it really means something else - perhaps a small hairy caterpillar of the genus Lonomia?
 
Syrixia:
If you all have any compassion and respect for this man and how much he clearly wants to contribute to the region- to the point where he's appointed Deputy Minister and this whole thing starts- you'll agree with me.
Click to expand...
So... if we have any respect for Nierr, we are obligated to actively disrespect his own wishes? :blink:

Nierr doesn't want citizenship. Stop trying to be his savior! He doesn't need one.
 
SillyString:
Syrixia:
If you all have any compassion and respect for this man and how much he clearly wants to contribute to the region- to the point where he's appointed Deputy Minister and this whole thing starts- you'll agree with me.
Click to expand...
So... if we have any respect for Nierr, we are obligated to actively disrespect his own wishes? :blink:

Nierr doesn't want citizenship. Stop trying to be his savior! He doesn't need one.
Click to expand...
If it's Nierr's wish not to accept the Deputy Minister position he was appointed to, then I have no problem with that.
 
falapatorius:
COE:
However, all that has happened is that a citizen has decided that Nierr's views are relevant, and has posted their impression of those views here.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just a citizen though, it was the Deputy Speaker.
Click to expand...
Zyvet was not posting in his official capacity as deputy speaker. Just because someone's name is pink doesn't mean that every post they make is a message from this office.

falapatorius:
(oh btw, I don't think a DoS person's views on pending legislation are relevant at all)
Click to expand...
To think so is your prerogative - clearly some disagree. That's what makes this a legislative body and not a choir.
 
This is one of the silliest RA discussions I can remember. Syrixia, remember the old proverb: It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.
 
If we could do this without massively extending the rights available under the BoR I would possibly consider running with it. The fact that this change would require a significant BoR amendment makes me question whether it is a good idea. We could end up in a tangle of consequences and I'm not sure I even want to go there with the philosophical ramifications of opening BoR protection to people who don't have a nation within the region.
 
My personal interpretation of the BoR is that it extends to all nations of TNP, and has nothing to do with citizenship. If we were to create an avenue to citizenship for people who did not have nations in TNP, the BoR would still not apply to them. If you read each clause of the BoR, it specifically applies itself to nations, not citizens.

That being said, I am against any path to citizenship for entities with no nation in TNP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top